Politics presents a very risky game of chance, but a game nonetheless. Trust me. Just like with counting cards you can practically always win.

Consider this. Barack Obama received record amounts of money during his 2008 campaign. But did you know that just four years earlier, the Bush campaign had set its own records in contributions during a presidential campaign?

By all accounts, Obama received most of his 2008 campaign cash through small donations. But PolitiFact checked that claim and found it to be false. Rather, it seems he accepted money from all comers.

With this in mind, it becomes genuinely amusing to witness the proposal for taxing the million-dollar-plus making members of our upper class. Why? Because many of those who will be taxed are those who put the President into office in the first place!

I don’t know how many of you are following the emerging Solyndra scandal (and I do mean scandal).

National Review Online is reporting the story—complete with links to several previous reports—but for some reason, I haven’t yet heard it break on the major networks. Now that may be because I use CNN as my main source of news. But in any event, much of it appears lost on the world.

My main gripe has to do with how quickly this shows the President began breaking campaign promises after taking office. [Continue reading]

What’s up with the need for having a presidential “spokesman?” (No, I’m not worried about being politically correct—we haven’t yet had a spokeswoman, probably because we haven’t yet had a female president.)

Editor’s note: Much to my chagrin, I’ve been gently reminded that we have had some spokeswomen. Thus my coy attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor fell flat on its face. Thanks to a reader for the correction…

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary

In the old days you did your own talking. From all I’ve been able to gather, there was never a need for someone else to explain on behalf of a president what they thought on a particular issue—they could do it all by themselves. This was the case with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and others. I’d like to think they’d find it pretty odd to have someone trying to tell others what their positions were on the problems of the day.

But somewhere along the way (post Abraham Lincoln), President’s began this modern practice of having a Press Secretary. It went along with the new practice of hiring White House staff, the numbers of which have of course grown dramatically over the years. [Continue reading…]

I find it interesting that, after the bombardment of Libya, Dennis Kucinich and others (Democrats and Republicans) are now parading it around as though it were a sacred cow.

Kucinich says that what Obama did (by not consulting Congress) was an impeachable offense—it doesn’t agree with the Constitution. And so it was. Congress, not the President, is given all authority to declare war (or attack others in this case) according to Article I Section 8 of the document.

Kucinich then said something that I find wholly obtuse. In essence, he stated that just because it’s an impeachable offense, that doesn’t mean we have to impeach the President.

Huh?! If the highest office of the land acts in a manner contrary to the Constitution which gives that office its powers, then mustn’t impeachment follow as a matter of course? How can an “impeachable offense” remain unchallenged, according to the laws set forth in the instrument which established the government in the first place?

Why is it that the Constitution is suddenly so important when liberals need it to be? Kucinich and many other Dems are crying “Foul!” that the Constitution wasn’t followed, yet they have shown extraordinary disdain for the document when it’s at odds with what they seek to do. The entire bailouts, running up huge deficits, dictating health care to the people and the several states—these are all un-, non-, or extra-constitutional in their own right. [Continue reading…]

In the spirit of colonial times, I've chosen a pseudonym for my writing--Hamiltonian87. Unlike those times, however, mine's put together in a modern way, not taken directly from a classical figure in western civilization.

While Alexander Hamilton most famously used "Publius" for his writing, I honor the Colonel by using his last name. His energy in persuading on behalf of the new government crafted in 1787 qualifies him for this honor.

I hope my thoughts and interpretations turn out to be compelling and engaging. Please feel free to leave comments as you like—I enjoy a lively discussion—but I would ask that you refrain from flaming, hateful, or profane speech.